tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-69308955732457658942008-04-07T18:38:00.000+01:002008-04-07T18:38:00.000+01:00Lots of thrashing going on about the ongoing CBC Radio 2 changes, to which I've contributed my own opinions. However, I've come to the conclusion that much of the criticism is not well founded, and some is downright misguided.<BR/><BR/>Start with the last CBC Radio Orchestra. There used to be 5 or 6 of these, set up in cities that did not have permanent orchestras. They have made a significant contribution, but I think there's a pretty good case to be made that their day has passed.<BR/><BR/>Let me declare my biases up front - my listening is probably 60% western classical music, 30% jazz, and 10% other (Indian classical and so on). I recognize the slipperiness of terminology (to which Pliable has referred), but I'll use the term "serious music" to describe what I think CBC Radio 2 should be featuring. In this scheme, most western classical music is serious, much jazz (but not all) is serious, and some "popular" music is serious (but a lower percentage than classical or jazz).<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that there are two elements to this - the direction in which CBC management has said they are trying to go, and the specific actions they have taken to date to move in those directions. Where I think many people go off the rails is that they over-focus on the first. My paraphrase of what management is saying is that there are genres of serious music that should be better represented on Radio 2. I agree with that. I disagree with many comments I've seen on the Radio 2 blog and in letters to the editor which do things like slag any form of jazz as not worth serious consideration, state firmly that there's no "popular" music at all that's worth a place on CBC, and so on. This sort of attitude is not helpful. Quite the contrary, it's narrow and pointless.<BR/><BR/>My criticisms are about specific actions taken or announced. I'll mention three about which I'm particularly unhappy.<BR/><BR/>First, there's the cancellation of the small number of more "specialist" programs in favour of "generalist" fare. Two cases - "Two New Hours" (new classical music, usually recorded live and often with commentary by the composers); and "Jazz Beat" (mostly Canadian live-recorded jazz, again with frequent commentary by the composers/performers). <BR/><BR/>Second, there's the ghettoization of western classical music. Weekdays provide the best example, where in the very near future, just about all the classical programming during the week will be during the hours when many (most?) potential listeners are working.<BR/><BR/>Third, I find a lack of focus in several of the new or revamped programs. They seem to be laid out for the listener who puts their iPod on "shuffle" and takes what comes. <BR/><BR/>In summary, I think arguing against the high-level direction is both futile and misguided. Expanding the range of music types is a positive development. It's at the level of specific programming decisions and time allocation that I believe they're going seriously wrong.<BR/><BR/>On the other side of the ledger, there are some new programs that I find both appropriate and to which I will listen with enjoyment. Also, there has been talk of 2 24/7 Internet streaming channels, one classical and one jazz.<BR/><BR/>I have no quarrel whatever with the notion that western classical music provides us with some of our most profound and affecting musical experiences, and that those are to be cherished. However, the reality is that most of the world would not agree with me, and attempting to focus a national radio service such as CBC Radio 2 on western classical music almost exclusively is simply not realistic.Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00914563821350955193noreply@blogger.com